Computer-generated Raking Technique

[JK_the_CJer]

No, its not about those Majestic-brand jiggler tools

I asked my computer to find the most effective raking technique using a half-diamond (other shapes to follow soon hopefully). Here's what its found so far:

http://theamazingking.com/lock-rake.html

Has anyone done similar experiments? I haven't tested these results yet, but maybe you guys can try it out when you're picking sometime.

Also, the model I use is not perfect; how could I improve it? What movements do you folks use when raking? Any other thoughts on how raking works on a binding-pins level?

These are just some thoughts to explore

[LocksmithArmy]

when i "rake" (not often) it is more of a scrubbing technique than random movements in a lock(bend picks that way) but instead of pulling straight back i give slight upward force. not enought to overset a pin but just enough so that when my pick is deflected down(as your anamation shows) it will recover some of that downward motion. so shorter pins are still picked.

for instance in your modle if your bitting was 35245, yourmodel would set pins 1, 2, and 5. it would set pin 1 and move down then set pin 2 and move down but it wouldnt push pin 3 and 4 up high enough then it would set pin 5.

if it were to apply upward force a bit while pulling out it would set pins 1, 2, 4, and 5. mabe even pin 3 if it was lucky(thats why i dont rake much... LUCK). you would set pin 1 and 2 the same way your modle does but it would be able to move back up a small amount. it should move close to the starting altitude, if you will, so that setting a pin length 4 should be no problem if it set a pin length 3 at the first time.

just my 2 cents.

verry cool model though. nicely done

[Jaakko]

Even if this would not work in realworld situation, I love the analytical approach that JK keeps up with lockpicking

JK, our new Michael Jackson with his Rakewalk

[BanditNL]

Sorry to go slightly off-topic here, but i would like to thank the topicstarter for this link:

http://theamazingking.com/lock-rake.html

That site offers me very useful info on lockpicking and i've stopped reading there to thank you
I'm a rookie in lockpicking, having 'started' only like 2 weeks ago and therefor have alot of reading
and practising to do, but that site explains alot in not too technical English

Thanks again,

Bandit (continues reading now)

[JK_the_CJer]

Jaakko:
Love ya

LocksmithArmy:
I'm running the app based on your model (my interpretation of it anyway) now. The results so far indicate the ideal combos remain the same but the success rate goes up. In this model, the pick is lifted 1 bitting height per spacing from the last set pin. So instead of just gliding off horizontally, it glides off at an upward angle (slope=1 bitting per space) and continues upward on that angle until it gets deflected again. I'll get the results up tomorrow (it takes most of a day to test a model).

BanditNL:
Glad you like the site; good luck on your path of learning.

[LocksmithArmy]

sounds like you interpreted it right...

thats amazing though. what kind of program do you use to test this and make the models... just curious

[JK_the_CJer]

sounds like you interpreted it right...

thats amazing though. what kind of program do you use to test this and make the models... just curious

I write the program in C, compile (using the free Dev-C++), and run it for the results. Model, in this context, is just a very specific description about how a system works. Once the model can be described in detail, its pretty easy to translate into code and run the tests. I'll throw some user input in the program ("How many pins?", "How many locks?", "MACS?", etc..) and toss it on the web tomorrow with the source code.

The 3D animation is completely separate and a pain to make. Its not complicated, it just takes time. I use the free 3D suite called Blender (i forget the URL, but google brings it right up) for that.

[LocksmithArmy]

thats awsome...

when i was drafting, back in the day, i used solid workds to draft and animate. it looked essentiall the same...

very excited to download your program though... seems fun to play with.

keep impressing...

[Minion]

I'll get the results up tomorrow (it takes most of a day to test a model).

Big O of n^n^n?

I can do some pretty good algorithm analysis to see if I can't optimize your code, if you'd like.

[JK_the_CJer]

I'll get the results up tomorrow (it takes most of a day to test a model).

Big O of n^n^n?

I can do some pretty good algorithm analysis to see if I can't optimize your code, if you'd like.

As for what the computational complexity is...I'll get it wrong if I guess. Big O always confused be in situations where there was more than one variable involved. I mean for problems like sorting lists, etc.. its simple because the length of the list is n. But for other multi-variable programs, I guess its the highest-order component. In this case, the runtime is something like PINS*RAKES*LOCKS*RUNS; because they are all variable is that O(n^4)? Bah, I give up

It'd be awesome if you took a stab at optimizing it. I've made the app more user-friendly and included options for the old randomly generated rakes and for brute-force. The program and source are now posted here for those that are interested:

http://theamazingking.com/lock-rake.html

Also put some of the LocksmithArmy upward raking results on that page (and added that option to the program).

[zeke79]

My only advice for your model is to be sure that MACS is taken into account. Fine tune your model for a few of the commonly found locks in your area by taking the lock with the largest gap in thousandths of an inch that is possible while following MACS. So with schlage having .015" between cuts and a MACS of 7 you have to total gap from low to high of .105". Hopefully you can see where I am going with this with the schlage info as an example. Basically you can take a few locks of different brands and set your model range with the smallest pin gap being the low end and the largest pin gap as the high end as this may yield some useful info based on actual lock data and not the characteristics of a few test locks. This way you should be able to see which pick and which style of raking works best for certain groups of locks.

Just my $0.02

Zeke79

[EvilGuru]

As for what the computational complexity is...I'll get it wrong if I guess. Big O always confused be in situations where there was more than one variable involved. I mean for problems like sorting lists, etc.. its simple because the length of the list is n. But for other multi-variable programs, I guess its the highest-order component. In this case, the runtime is something like PINS*RAKES*LOCKS*RUNS; because they are all variable is that O(n^4)? Bah, I give up

The complexity is O(m * n * p * q) as the parameters are linearly independent.

It'd be awesome if you took a stab at optimizing it. I've made the app more user-friendly and included options for the old randomly generated rakes and for brute-force. The program and source are now posted here for those that are interested:

http://theamazingking.com/lock-rake.html

Assuming you have no done so already enable compiler optimisations. I forget how to do this in Dev-C++, but there is an option for it. This should get you twice the performance.

The task is also easy to multi-thread, again this may get you a 2x speed-up. (I'd be happy to implement it if you'd like.)

However, I suspect 200,000 locks is overkill. I would put my theory to the test, but it is quite late here. I suspect you can get away with a fraction of that mind you.

On a coding side of things: beware of statistical biases caused by the use of rand() % something. This page does a very good job at explaining how to use rand(): http://www.eternallyconfuzzled.com/arts ... _rand.aspx

Regards, Freddie.

[Madhatta3]

JK_the_CJer
I asked my computer to find the most effective raking technique using a half-diamond (other shapes to follow soon hopefully). Here's what its found so far:

http://theamazingking.com/lock-rake.html

Has anyone done similar experiments? I haven't tested these results yet, but maybe you guys can try it out when you're picking sometime.

Also, the model I use is not perfect; how could I improve it? What movements do you folks use when raking? Any other thoughts on how raking works on a binding-pins level?

These are just some thoughts to explore

_________________

This link is incredible, I apologize If I did this wrong. Great breakdown though on the spp.

[padlocks]

Very impressive - interesting to see someone taking a fresh approach.

[Safety0ff]

I reprogrammed this my own way using C++.

It's interesting to look at the difference in "strategy" one extra rake does or the difference one extra pin makes. I coded a second model, as well as implemented the "upwards" raking, but they didn't seem to change the "best" strategy (although success rates changed,) so most of my results are using brute force and default settings.

Since the strategy changes greatly with respect to the number of times you plan to rake it, it's not very applicable to reality (but it's entertaining none the less.)

I've chosen a different pin # convention than JK has, I think it's easier to notice paterns with mine, , either way there's a function that will convert both ways.

The source:
http://pastebin.com/f1956af88

My results file:
http://pastebin.com/f5ac12679

The purpose of the brute force range method is so that you can do long simulations in smaller steps and then figure out the best strategy from the .txt file.
i.e. If you wanted to brute force all the 60 466 176 combo's of raking a 6 pin lock 10 times you might want to break it up into smaller chunks. (testing 280 000 combo's on 25 000 locks took 1.5 hours on my computer...)

JK's program and mine differ, but this is for entertainment purposes only, so it doesn't really matter.

Feel free to do whatever you want with the source as long as you note who the original authors are.

Interesting note:
Strategy "1-1-4-2-1" is either best or second best in the 4-6 pin locks, raking 5 times.
In JK's notation, this would be:
(4 pin) 4-4-1-3-4
(5 pin) 5-5-2-4-5
(6 pin) 6-6-3-5-6